I am losing the ability to suspend disbelief. I started watching a show tonight called "Walking Dead". Some mystery contagion has swept the world turning most of the population into flesh-eating zombies. It is a pretty good story, with decent acting and effects. I began watching shortly after the program had started and there was a scene with one of the main characters, a sheriff, confronting what he thought was a scared little girl. She turns around and you can see she doesn't have the lower half of her face. Now the first thing I think is how can this thing composed of necrotic tissue function. All the biochemical pathways have broken down, cell membranes have degraded. If the organs are dead, none of the necessary functions are being carried out. Not to mention the host of microbial flora that are starting to take over the body from within and without. I mentioned that they are flesh-eating, but I can't imagine what good that would do them or why they would need to eat.I really don't think I have lost the ability to suspend disbelief for the pleasure of entertainment. I just don't have the same ignorance I did as a child. I don't attribute supernatural origins to every phenomenon I encounter, but don't fully understand. It doesn't frighten me when there are real, concrete answers to questions that cross into my belief system.

How could she eat anyway if she's missing the lower half of her face? Wouldn't she starve to death? Oh, Wait...

<quoted text>Yes and no. Some base it on fear. Some base it on hope. Some base it on belief. Some fear going to hell. Some hope to get out of this hell and go to heaven. Some just believe and hope for the best.

So to make a long story (1700 pages, more or less) short, religion is a coping mechanism.

<quoted text>As opposed to creationism that postulates that such a process happened 10,000 years ago or so.The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, or about a third the age of the universe. A *lot* happened between the formation of the universe and the formation of the earth. Life appears to be a phenomenon that started on the earth (although there is some dispute here).So the question of how the universe formed and the question of how life formed in that universe are two very different questions. They are approached by different methods, have different ways of testing, and are not directly related to each other (except that the formation of life requires the chemicals that were formed after the universe got started).<quoted text>Wrong.Abiogenesis does not address how the universe came about. It deals with the natural processes that formed the first life. Those processes were clearly much later than the formation of the universe since the very early universe was inhospitable to life (way too hot).So, it is quite possible that some deity formed the universe and that *later* life began through the natural processes that the deity started at the beginning. That would still be abiogenesis: the formation of life through natural processes. So creation and abiogenesis are quite compatible.Now, there is no evidence that this, in fact, happened. It is *possible* that the universe was created by a multi-dimensional teenager as a high-school art project. That would still be 'creation', but it certainly wouldn't correspond to your ideas of 'God'.It is *possible* that some race of intelligent beings in the multi-verse learned how to create universes and that ours is one of the universes they created. It is even *possible* that this creation was a mistake by a scientists that was investigating something else.<quoted text>I am not 'hostile' to the idea of a God. I simply find the evidence for such a being to be sorely lacking. The actual range of natural possibilities has not been thoroughly investigated, so it is quite premature to proclaim an intelligent designer or even a creator (different concepts--see the scientists above).You claim the universe was designed and created, for which we have no evidence. You then claim that there was a further intervention when life formed, without any evidence. You then claim that there were yet other interventions to a very specific small planet during a very short period of time and that the designer of the universe *also* has given moral laws to the inhabitants of this one planet.And you say *I* am being stupid?

and you despite your dubious claims, have no evidence that life sprang forth from a puddle on it's on.

<quoted text> But despite their concepts, they are used to determine real things. So, by that, they are real.

As concepts they are real, but as physical, tangible things they are not.

Iceland for instance is an island and as such surrounded on all side by water. Disregarding wave and tidal action, you can see where the land and the sea meet. It is a boundary established by nature on physical principles and we can see it. Longitude, latitude, and political borders are not physically real, but the concepts they represent are real. I think in the sense of concepts you see them as real, but in the sense of an actual line somewhere, they are not. These were all established by people and don't represent some natural line that we somehow found or tuned in on. We could just as easily pick a different set of lines and use those.

Don't forget, a map is just a metaphor and metaphors are never perfect.

<quoted text>It's you who is not taken seriously Bohart. Many intellegent posts have been aimed specifically at you, yet this "lying, dodging ducking, accusing, and even distorting the meaning of words" are the typical responses from you. Time and time again, just like this post of yours I'm quoting. Frankly I'm suprised Subduction Zone even takes the time to reply to you, knowing full well your response will be simply uneducated sarcasm, typical of a troll.

Oh no! perhaps you can help Subby find a dictionary that has word definitions he can agree with, or maybe you can help him write his own dictionary. You see, he's the one who's having trouble with distorting words.

What is your hypothesis of how life began? and what evidence do you have to support it?

<quoted text>and you despite your dubious claims, have no evidence that life sprang forth from a puddle on it's on.So here we are.

We do not know if life started in a 'puddle', in a deep sea vent, inside a mica crystal, or in some other environment. In that, you are correct. But we *do* know that chemicals naturally polymerize and become more complex in such environments and in the way that is necessary for life to develop.

And, once again, we *know* that life is a chemical process. We know that none of the chemicals involved in life are themselves alive. We know that the basic components of the chemicals in life are common in the universe and would have been common on the early earth.

Now, what exactly is your alternative explanation? That a supernatural being, for which we have no evidence, breathed a breath of life, for which we have no evidence, into a bit of mud and humans came out of this alive and fully formed? Exactly what is the process involved in this transformation? What physical properties existed at each stage? How did the chemistry of life get started in your version of events?

For that matter, how can you suggest an 'explanation' that is based on the existence of a supernatural realm for which we have no evidence, whose properties are unknown and untestable, which has a being that we cannot fathom, with motives that cannot be understood by us, and that can overturn any law of physics at a whim? How is that an explanation at all? If anything, it is the complete avoidance of an explanation: it has no testability, it has no solid predictions of the properties of life, it is based on no known properties of the being proposed, etc. As an explanation, it it totally worthless (except to calm the fears of a two year old).

So yes, to say that life, which is chemically based, and which is made from basic chemicals that are common, could have arose from natural chemical processes is a FAR more justifiable explanation than what you propose.

<quoted text>Oh no! perhaps you can help Subby find a dictionary that has word definitions he can agree with, or maybe you can help him write his own dictionary. You see, he's the one who's having trouble with distorting words.What is your hypothesis of how life began? and what evidence do you have to support it?

You poor moron. If you had half of a brain you would want to know WHY the definitions had problems. Instead you are happy to play the idiot.

It is early in the morning and I feel generous to idiots for now. What was wrong with the first definition is that it called abiogenesis a "theory" where we know that it is a hypothesis.. If it was a "theory" that would mean the problem was fairly well solved so that we could predict how early life would react at different points in its development, just as the theory of gravity allows us to plot orbits, use GPS systems etc.

<quoted text>and you despite your dubious claims, have no evidence that life sprang forth from a puddle on it's on.So here we are.

Actually we do have evidence. He even listed some of it for you. Unfortunately for you, you do not know what qualifies as scientific evidence. And yet idiots like you were why scientific evidence has the definition that it now has.

I love the fact there is no real fossil record of man from the apes to man. Well unless you take into account the ones made up of ape bones and a lot of plaster. Leakey proved that game true.

You have been running your mouth a lot without providing any evidence that supports your claim.

Let's see your evidence for your Leakey claim and I will gladly provide evidence for the various fossils.

By the way, you could not even get what the fossils represent correctly. Since men are apes the fossil record shows a transition from one ape species to another. Biologists knew that man was an ape long before Darwin came along. In fact it was a creationist who first recognized this fact.

<quoted text>Yes, they did in my day too. It is still an old man's game.

excuse me? golf an old man's game? i've been playing since i was six. my grandson plays and he is three.(well, he prefers to just hit the heads off his mom's old barbie dolls in the back yard, but he has a hell of a natural swing..)

<quoted text>excuse me? golf an old man's game? i've been playing since i was six. my grandson plays and he is three.(well, he prefers to just hit the heads off his mom's old barbie dolls in the back yard, but he has a hell of a natural swing..)golf is anything but an old man's game.

<quoted text>Thesaurus: hypothesis (noun) Synonyms - theory · premise · suggestion · supposition · proposition · guesshttp://www.bing.com/search...A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...

For your EDUCATION!:

Scientific theoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchFor a general treatment of theories, see theory.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]

<quoted text>For your EDUCATION!:Scientific theoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchFor a general treatment of theories, see theory.A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]Now STFU!

To bad you are too stupid to even see that we were talking about hypothesis. Swing and a miss but thanks for playing. So STFU yourself.

Go do something you have never done before,,, make a difference in something.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.